Skip to main content

About your Search

20120925
20121003
STATION
CNN 5
CNNW 5
WETA 2
CNBC 1
KCSM (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
MSNBCW 1
LANGUAGE
English 34
Search Results 0 to 33 of about 34 (some duplicates have been removed)
at the state department, that the u.s. ambassador susan rice made on five sunday talk shows here in the united states. they're making this a big issue. does it have political legs as they say? >> well, first of all, i wouldn't be surprised the romney administration -- i mean the romney team make hay out of anything. look, they're looking for an issue. and they're the last people that we should hear from on foreign policy given all of the missteps that mitt romney has made. but look, wolf, beyond the political nature of this whole inquiry, we need to look at the fact that al qaeda leaders posted a video a day before the attack on september 10th which mr. alvarez wa ri wanted to avenge the death of one of his deputies in libya. he called upon libyans to, you know, try to provoke unrest. so look i think one of the things we should do right now is to let congress -- members of congress investigate this. they will investigate this. senator kerry along with senator has sent a letter to the administration answering very important questions that i think the american people will want to know. on the sh
susan rice out on the sunday shows and attending that this was the outcrop -- outgrowth of a demonstration. everybody over the age of nine could see that it was premeditated. that is why it was ppressed until it could no longer be suppressed. >> i am not aware of the conspiracy that charles has his own strange and wonderful sources -- >> how do you explain her -- >> i am going to try to explain my moderator's question about this. the problems were pulle -- the problem republicans have is that mitt romney has never c cracked the threshold of being a possible commander in chief. it does punish the obama record, and there's no question that osama bin laden took the wind out of the cells of the republican candidates. it was an enormous credential for obama. but because romney chose paul ryan, he in no way filled out the emptiness of his own resume in foreign policy. for that reason, he has not been able to exploit what should be an advantage. >> can you explain why susan rice insisted that the attack the embassy was the result of a demonstration? >> it is entirely possible -
that when susan rice was sent out to tell us it was in response to a video and just a spontaneous act. what, please put this in perspective for us. >> well, let's have the most generous interpretation possible for this administration. when eli lake broke the story, why i think it is wrong, this is only explanation possible. when eli lake broke the story. megyn: "daily beast". >> yeah for "the daily beast", soon after the attack we had a pretty good bead on some of the individuals involved in the attack. another one said we had two kinds of intelligence on one guy. we believe we had enough to target him. these guys have return address, camps people and variety of things we could do. if you had intelligence about a possible terrorist attack would make sense not to tip off al qaeda that we knew so we could have element of surprise if we wanted to respond to it. the problem with that is, one we didn't respond. it has been 17 days and there have been no drone strikes on al qaeda camps or, return address hasn't been hit anywhere. two, there is difference w hole holding intelligence and lying abou
to the united nations susan rice, to resign because of the comments she made on those five sunday talk shows? >> yes, wolf. i believe that this was such a failure of foreign policy message and leadership, such a misstatement of facts at the time and for her to go on all of those shows and in effect the spokesman for the world and be misinforming the american people and our allies and countries around the world, to me somebody has to pay the price for this. we have too much things go wrong and everyone forgets about it the next day. i think we have to send a clear message. on such an issue where an american ambassador was killed where by all the evidence at the time the presumption had to be it was terrorism. i can see why if they wanted to say - it was intentionally or unintly and to show the significance of that, i believe she should gn, yes. >> because there is statemt that the pokesperson, the director of public affairs for the offif director of national intelligence put out today they et w obviously arist -- a action, delibete and organized terrorist assault carried out by extres affili
to the united nations susan rice went on the talk shows it was a chest - orchesterated line. within 24 hours they knew it was a terrorist attack and how did they know that? they have to classify it as a terrorist attack to get the right people in action to go in investigate. that had happened. >> brian: there is a couple of problems with it 24 hours after the attacks we knew, there was intelligence knew. whether ambassador rice or president obama knew. i would have to assume they did know. they went everywhere saying we had no idea and blamed the movie. hilary clinton blamed the movie three times in the after math and jay carny blay amed the movie and president obama in the un podium mentioned the mouvy and not being -- being part of the reason for the killings. charles has a summary. let's listen to them. >> why did they deceive? it is obvious. the attack tock place five days after the democrats had spent ape week in charlotte spiking the football on osama and the only foreign policy achievement of four years they repeated it over and over. and great triumph and then al-qaida sacks the emba
. >> greta: so unusual that a u.n. ambassador, susan rice, got sent out. like they sent her out to dry, send her out to the five sunday shows to look the most foolish. >> and the president goes to the u.n. and says video, video, video. he hung himself out to dry. this is after his press secretary that it is obvious that it was an act of terrorism. there's no rationality to this white house. >> greta: governor, thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> greta: now to a very disturbing question. did the obama administration just flat out lie? the obama administration did know from day one that the attack in our consulate in banghazi was terrorism. why didn't they tell us? is there some reasonable explanation? let's ask state department official hi liz cheney. why didn't we get the truth from the get-go? >> one you heard the president's speech in virginia, he said al-qaeda is on a path to defeat and osama bin laden is dead. that's their success, that somehow the killing of bin laden has ended the war. it's an inconvenient fact for them politically if in fact al-qaeda is resurgent across north africa, in
an sunday show, susan rice come in to focus. >> not only do you have leon panetta at c.i.a. saying it took a while to get that information. >> bret: at defense. >> at defense. and you have general petraeus at c.i.a. saying you know what? when he testified it was not terrorism at that point. i think the intelligence is at fault if you want to say that. difficult environment. the intelligence, nobody intentionally deceiving anybody. >> bret: charles? >> question is not the wisdom of the libya operation. question is the honesty of the obama administration. this was deception on the part of the administration and sending susan rice to say this is spontaneous demonstration when you reported it was known inside the administration within a day it was not. it was a terror attack. why did they deceive? of course. the attack took place five days after the democrats had spent a week in charlotte. out thing, spiking the football on usama and since it's the only foreign policy achievement of four years they repeat it over and over again. the triumph over al-qaeda. in a week, al-qaeda sacks a u.s. embas
of the administration in sending susan rice to say this is a spontaneous demonstration when as you reported it was known inside the administration within a day that is was not. it was a terror attack. why did they deceive? it's obvious. the attack took place five days after the democrats spent a week in charlotte touting, spiking the football on oh sa -- spikinn osama. within a week of al qaeda sacks a u.s. embassy, kill an ambassador and the administration did not want to admit. they not they stringt out the media wouldn't care. megyn: joining me now, andy card, former white house chief of staff under former president george w. bush. your thoughts on charles's theory. >> i believe the white house must have had some intelligence work prior to 9/11 to anticipate where attacks could be on 9/11. it would have been logical for our intelligence community to want to brief the president about what intelligence work we were discovering and what had to be done to harden potential targets around the world. i also honestly believe the fault expectation at the white house should have been this was a terrorist attac
conference about it. the last we heard beyond jay carney's pressers, is susan rice saying this is unrelated to the video, a lot of gray matter that surrounds what went down. it makes sense mitt romney would try to exploit that for campaign purposes and because he probably does have questions as many of us do about what exactly went down and whether there was breach of u.s. intelligence? >> i think both speeches today and overall of state of the race now is that caution is the operative word for the administration. right. they don't want do anything to disturb the patterns in the rate which are all moving in their direction. the libya story has been the one sort of story that persistently is sort of gnawing away a bit at their need to keep things static. the administration doesn't want to do anything to sort of bring more attention to that, obviously. because right now look, most voters are not voting on foreign policy. this is a domestic policy election. there's a limited amount of currency that the romney campaign can get from foreign policy but the one thing the media is interested in so
. the administration was putting its people out on the sunday shows with susan rice on four or five sunday to say it was because of the video. this is an astonishing amateur performance. now it's only that we're getting what we should have gotten from the beginning. it's a wonderful difference in the coverage of the two men. >> greta: the domestic coverage, what's going on capitol hill, it's been portrayed, even in the letter they've sent to a number of news organizations complaining about bias, is that the republicans' desire to cut the budget, to start going off a catastrophic fiscal cliff is portrayed as mean and selfish, and not as a -- you know, not as an effort to try to come up with some remedy for the inevitable. >> i've asked the question more than once of people, is will there come a day when people look upon this time and know that there was a party trying to head off a fiscal calamity. i'm not sure -- certainly the journalism isn't being rin, and. it's there. it's serious. >> greta: i think some try harder not to be, but i think it's almost inevitable. i think you try your besting to
with this. what about this coverup? >> it is a coverup. >> susan rice goes out and basically lies to the american people on a number of news shows, we now know that the administration knew right away that this was a pre-planned al qaeda terrorist operation and they lied and now they're covering up the lie. >> within 24 hours they knew it was an al qaeda operation. >> so that's why they don't want obama loose on this foreign policy. >> obama never takes -- he never says i'm to blame. it's always george bush is to blame, somebody else is to blame. he's never to blame. he is to blame. it's on his watch. >> go ahead, mark. >> the one thing that i have to say in defense of the administration here, and i know the security situation in the north africa quite well because of my own experience. it was confusing in the beginning. but it's no excuse if going out there and trotting out some alibi that it was not a terrorist attack. so i agree with that. but the one thing i want to say is the president did give a remarkably well tailored speech at the jen as s general assembl. it did an roept
going to be cautious, why then proffer as ambassador susan rice did an alternative that it was related to this protest. that doesn't make -- if you don't want to speculate, then don't speculate either way. and so i just think now they're being criticized because they guessed wrong. >> it raises lots of conspiracy theories as well that people have, right or wrong. fran, appreciate it. bob baer. >>> senator john mccain is a long-time supporter of freedom for libya. he supported president obama's actions to remove gadhafi. he's been critical of how the administration has handled the benghazi aftermath. we spoke earlier today. take a look. wh do you make of the response by the administration in the early days of ambassador rice and now what they're saying now, they're now saying it was a terrorist attack. the president did use the word terror early on in the rose garden, but we heard from ambassador rice, who is saying link this to the video. what do you see as going on? >> i see a fundamental misunderstanding in the larger picture and then on the smaller picture. in the smaller picture th
susan rice, the ambassador to the united nations -- >> right. jon: -- was out on the sunday shows four or five days after the attack -- >> saying that it budget. >> right. jon, frankly, i don't know enough about the sequence of events to comment on that. >> but, peter -- >> i think the fact that the administration probably was trying to be more careful than respond to the news cycle. that's my -- >> that's not true, peter. is it not true dealing with harry reid and the budget, is it not true dealing with the president and the jobs council? >> i think the republicans in the -- >> no, answer that. jon: we are -- >> i didn't want say it wasn't true. i just said the republicans and democrats have fought on the hill, and reid and mcconnell have both done things. jon: we are going to let the viewers decide for themselves. you guys argued it pretty well. peter, angela, thank you both. >> thank you. jenna: high stakes at the united nations today. israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu set to make his case against a nuclear rapp. we're going to have a preview of what to expect and why this s
Search Results 0 to 33 of about 34 (some duplicates have been removed)